What must a party prove regarding the cost of building an alternative road for an easement by necessity?

In the context of an easement by necessity, the party seeking to establish such an easement typically must prove that the cost of building an alternative road is unreasonable and out of proportion to the value of the land. This principle arises because an easement by necessity is intended to provide access to landlocked property in a manner that is fair and reasonable, without imposing excessive burdens on the owner of the dominant estate or creating disproportionate costs.

Proving that the cost is unreasonable and disproportionate establishes that constructing an alternative route is not a feasible solution for accessing the necessary property. Courts consider the economic burden of creating the alternative access in relation to the land's value and the need for that access. If the cost is deemed unreasonable or vastly exceeds the value of the property, the court may find that alternative access is not a viable option, thereby necessitating the easement.

Other considerations, such as affordability, equity, or the requirement for governmental approval, do not directly address the essential legal standard for proving the need for an easement by necessity in this situation. Thus, understanding the correct requirement regarding unreasonable costs is fundamental to grasping how easements by necessity function within property law.